Hotter, Badder, and Unpopularer Takes

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

"Gen Z is a nationalist/conservative generation"

Or the Catholic-specific equivalent, "Gen Z Catholics are all Marcel Lefebvre clones".

For a hot, bad, or unpopular take that I myself believe: ~THE CONFLICT~ does not need to be and should not be a core leftist/progressive litmus test (although support for Netanyahu should obviously throw up red flags in the same way that support for other right-wing irredentist leaders does).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

"Gen Z is a nationalist/conservative generation"

Or the Catholic-specific equivalent, "Gen Z Catholics are all Marcel Lefebvre clones".

For a hot, bad, or unpopular take that I myself believe: ~THE CONFLICT~ does not need to be and should not be a core leftist/progressive litmus test (although support for Netanyahu should obviously throw up red flags in the same way that support for other right-wing irredentist leaders does).

Why not? Not worshiping a concept but following a king is definitely the progressive way.

I'm not sure what you're responding to. By "~THE CONFLICT~" I mean the Arab-Israeli conflict.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

John Wick 3 and Detective Pikachu will be better than Endgame.

This isn't that hot. I liked Endgame a lot more than I expected to, but it wasn't exactly Kubrick.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The idea that the intelligence level of the person propounding a position is some direct measure of its value is one of the more inane things you see in society today. Utilitarianism is an awful doctrine and it seems to be exclusively smart people who embrace it.

Mind explaining what is wrong with Utilitarianism? Never seen anyone coming out as strongly against it, though I'm not really one for philosophical debates. Agree with the intelligence part though, smart people can have insane beliefs about certain topics.

To be a pure utilitarian, you essentially have to sacrifice any belief in individual rights or freedoms you may have. I know utilitarians in real life, and this has brought them down some horrible lines of thinking.

I know you and I had a spat recently, but I couldn't agree with you more on this.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

"Gen Z is a nationalist/conservative generation"

This is correct, the data shows it and as a Gen Z myself living in a very democratic area I have experienced it.

Gen Z is the most racially, ethically, and sexually diverse generation ever. I think you mean this is true for Gen Z white men and no one else

White females too. They seem to be very, at least economically, conservative. Socially they lean slightly left of center.

Young black males seem to be trending right too. They seem to be embracing more socially conservative viewpoints as the nations social situation becomes more liberal.

The cringy "SJW roasted compilations" and "Ben Shapiro roasts libs" have really gotten to the youth. Those talking points are all over Gen Z and the majority of high schoolers seem to be rejecting such extreme forms of social individuality.

I work in a high school. You're talking sh**t.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

"Gen Z is a nationalist/conservative generation"

This is correct, the data shows it and as a Gen Z myself living in a very democratic area I have experienced it.

Gen Z is the most racially, ethically, and sexually diverse generation ever. I think you mean this is true for Gen Z white men and no one else

White females too. They seem to be very, at least economically, conservative. Socially they lean slightly left of center.

Young black males seem to be trending right too. They seem to be embracing more socially conservative viewpoints as the nations social situation becomes more liberal.

The cringy "SJW roasted compilations" and "Ben Shapiro roasts libs" have really gotten to the youth. Those talking points are all over Gen Z and the majority of high schoolers seem to be rejecting such extreme forms of social individuality.

I work in a high school. You're talking sh**t.

In Massachusetts,

And you're in Illinois. What's your point?

and your school is different than mine clearly.

Clearly.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

"Population control" is racist, classist, and ableist horsesh**t anyway. I'm saying that both in response to this discussion and as a contribution to this thread in its own right.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The US Senate has only slightly more democratic legitimacy than the European Commission.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Iceland's policy on downs syndrome should be applied elsewhere.

I'll see that take and raise you the take that Iceland's treatment of Down Syndrome (my understanding is that it can't really be called a "policy") should attract the same level of opprobrium that China got for the one child policy.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In terms of songwriting and musicianship, the 1940s had better popular music than the 1960s.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

New age atheism like Dawkins, Harris, the late Hitchens, Bill Maher, etc.. seem to becoming an increasingly right wing reactionary group in this day and age as opposed to the liberals they were branded as in the 2000s

I would imagine if you did a poll atheists would demonstrate much more liberal views (at least on social issues) than religious people. There are probably more right wing atheists now just because there are more atheists. Obviously religious conservatives are not going to be atheists so they are going to be other right wing groups like libertarians or the alt right.

Atheists in the US do skew left, but most atheists aren't Dawkinsist-Harrisists. People who were "New Atheists" a decade ago have definitely found common cause with the right in terms of attitudes towards non-Western immigrants and refugees, and many are now also adopting increasingly reactionary views on issues between men and women, even though most of them are still pro-choice and pro-SSM.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The etymology of the word "embarrassed" is way, way more #problematic than that of the word "ndly".

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Well, yeah, that's why I objected to the use of the word "policy".

On further thought, I suppose faulting a country for a practice undertaken voluntarily by its populace isn't really a fair analogue to faulting a country for a practice coerced by its authoritarian government. Thus, I'd further amend my observation to say that this is a practice that should cause us to take a serious look at ourselves and the way we understand disability in our own societies.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Iceland's policy on downs syndrome should be applied elsewhere.

I'll see that take and raise you the take that Iceland's treatment of Down Syndrome (my understanding is that it can't really be called a "policy") should attract the same level of opprobrium that China got for the one child policy.

If you're referring to the fake news policy I agree. The real one actually just requires (1) disclosure and (2) honesty when a woman requests a test for Down syndrome on an unborn baby. Most are subsequently aborted, but it isn't mandatory to take the test, and it isn't mandatory to abort the child if the child would be disabled.

I'm aware. I elaborated on (and amended) what I meant here when this was pointed out on the previous page of this thread.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The 2020 Electoral College is tilt Trump, closer to lean than tossup, even though the popular vote is likely D, closer to safe than lean.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The 2020 Electoral College is tilt Trump, closer to lean than tossup, even though the popular vote is likely D, closer to safe than lean.

I consider them both Likely Trump.

Okay.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'll say it: Watto is more offensive than Jar Jar.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Most "bellwether" streaks are statistical coincidence rather than the bellwether actually being representative of the national mood in any sociologically testable way.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Most "bellwether" streaks are statistical coincidence rather than the bellwether actually being representative of the national mood in any sociologically testable way.

Thread title said Unpopular, not Popular. Thats a Popular take.

Not outside this forum it isn't.

Also, the reason we always hear about "the Ohio bellwether" (and, formerly, "the Missouri bellwether") and not "the Florida bellwether" or "the Nevada bellwether", which were about equally reliable for a long time, is mostly just that the former two reinforce a narrative of the BUILT FORD TOUGH REAL AMERICAN HEARTLAND as somehow representative of the national electorate that the latter don't. We hear about Florida and Nevada as "swing states", but not as "bellwethers", and the reason for that is in part ideological or pseudo-ideological on the part of the media.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The word "disabled" is much worse than "handicapped" or even "retarded" and it's nuts that it has become a standard way to refer to people.

It isn't. The standard is "person with a disability".

It's a controversial standard. Among disabled people, many of us do prefer person-first language, but many of us also consider it a needlessly circumlocutory imposition that well-meaning prescriptivists keep trying to shove down our throats. The in-community standard varies from disability to disability; for example, autistic people typically (but not universally) prefer just using the prenominal adjective, whereas with cerebral palsy there's pretty much no way not to use person-first language that isn't some sort of slur. (For another example, try using person-first language with a culturally Deaf person and send my regards to the body bag.)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Is a cheese-less pizza even possible?

Yes, although I guess it's debatable if you consider it "pizza" instead of a flatbread cooked with tomato sauce and vegetables on top of it. Made right it can be pretty good though.

When I was in Italy last year I had the opportunity to go to a pizzeria in Naples that's been around since the turn of the twentieth century, and the two kinds that they had were margherita (mozzarella, tomato, and basil) and marinara (just marinara sauce and oregano, no cheese).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Stand Atlantic is better than Paramore (and Bonnie is actually even hotter than Hayley Williams.)

I can't judge either of these assertions conclusively on the basis of two music videos, but yeah, this is actually pretty great stuff.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I genuinely, honestly cannot grasp--emotionally, empathetically grasp--how a decent human being can possibly be right-wing on material issues, although I believe strongly enough in fair play and honest discussion and have a clear enough intellectual understanding of most arguments for right-wing positions that I'm able to act as if I can grasp it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I genuinely, honestly cannot grasp--emotionally, empathetically grasp--how a decent human being can possibly be right-wing on material issues, although I believe strongly enough in fair play and honest discussion and have a clear enough intellectual understanding of most arguments for right-wing positions that I'm able to act as if I can grasp it.

I feel similarly about pro-choicers - I can intellectually grasp the arguments but it is difficult for me to see how a decent, intellectually honest person who has thought through the issue can defend it, though such clearly is the case and there are indeed well-meaning pro-choice people. I attribute it to ignorance and emotivism largely, but to me it is something that so plainly cries for justice it is easy to get polemical about.  

Ignorance and emotivism on pro-choicers' part (hence their ability to hold the position) or on your part (hence your inability to grasp their holding it)? I ask because I definitely feel that it's a failure of imagination and a failure of compassion on my part to have the problem I'm describing (since I'm perfectly aware of the descriptive fact that people whom I like very much--such as you and Cathcon!--can and often do have pointedly right-wing politics), and I'm not humblebragging or virtue signaling by bringing it up.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Constantine I, as an individual, is not an important figure in the history of Christian theology, although several of his successors are.